Recent decades have shown major improvements in survival rates after cardiac arrest. However, few interventions have been tested in order to improve the care for survivors and their family members. In many countries, including Sweden, national guidelines for post cardiac arrest care and follow-up programs are not available and current practice has not previously been investigated. The aim of this survey was therefore to describe current post cardiac arrest care and follow-up in Sweden. An internet based questionnaire was sent to the resuscitation coordinators at all Swedish emergency hospitals (n = 74) and 59 answers were received. Quantitative data were analysed with descriptive statistics and free text responses were analysed using manifest content analysis. Almost half of the hospitals in Sweden (n = 27, 46 %) have local guidelines for post cardiac arrest care and follow-up. However, 39 % of them reported that these guidelines were not always applied. The most common routine is a follow-up visit at a cardiac reception unit. If the need for neurological or psychological support are discovered the routines are not explicit. In addition, family members are not always included in the follow-up. Although efforts are already made to improve post cardiac arrest care and follow-up, many hospitals need to focus more on this part of cardiac arrest treatment. In addition, evidence-based national guidelines will have to be developed and implemented in order to achieve a more uniform care and follow-up for survivors and their family members. This national survey highlights this need, and might be helpful in the implementation of such guidelines.

Aims : Individuals with low socioeconomic status (SES) face widespread prejudice in society. Whether SES disparities exist in treatment and survival following in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) is unclear. The aim of the current retrospective registry study was to examine SES disparities in IHCA treatment and survival, assessing SES at the patient level, and adjusting for major demographic, clinical, and contextual factors. Methods and results : In total, 24 217 IHCAs from the Swedish Register of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation were analysed. Education and income constituted SES proxies. Controlling for age, gender, ethnicity, comorbidity, heart rhythm, aetiology, hospital, and year, primary analyses showed that high (vs. low) SES patients were significantly less likely to receive delayed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (highly educated: OR = 0.89, and high income: OR = 0.98). Furthermore, patients with high SES were significantly more likely to survive CPR (high income: OR = 1.02), to survive to hospital discharge with good neurological outcome (highly educated: OR = 1.27; high income: OR = 1.06), and to survive to 30 days (highly educated: OR = 1.21; and high income: OR = 1.05). Secondary analyses showed that patients with high SES were also significantly more likely to receive prophylactic heart rhythm monitoring (highly educated: OR = 1.16; high income: OR = 1.02), and this seems to partially explain the observed SES differences in CPR delay. Conclusion : There are clear SES differences in IHCA treatment and survival, even when controlling for major sociodemographic, clinical, and contextual factors. This suggests that patients with low SES could be subject to discrimination when suffering IHCA.

To increase survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA), great efforts are made to improve the number of voluntary first responders (VFR). However, evidence of the potential utility of such efforts is sparse, especially in rural areas. Therefore, the aim was to describe and compare response times for emergency medical services (EMS), fire and rescue services (FRS), and VFR during OHCA in relation to population density. This observational and comparative study was based on data including positions and time stamps for VFR and response times for EMS and FRS in a region in southern Sweden. In total, 285 OHCAs between 1 July 2020 and 31 December 2021 were analysed. VFR had the shortest median response time in comparison to EMS and FRS in all studied population densities. The overall median (Q1–Q3) time gain for VFR was 03:07 (01:39–05:41) minutes. A small proportion (19.2%) of alerted VFR accepted the assignments. This is most problematic in rural and sub-rural areas, where there were low numbers of alerted VFR. Also, FRS had shorter response time than EMS in all studied population densities except in urban areas. The differences found in median response times between rural and urban areas are worrisome from an equality perspective. More focus should be placed on recruiting VFR, especially in rural areas since VFR can potentially contribute to saving more lives. Also, since FRS has a shorter response time than EMS in rural, sub-rural, and sub-urban areas, FRS should be dispatched more frequently.